Bible binding techniques: Analysis of spine lining constructions and endpaper reinforcements

(1)

Rochester Institute of Technology

RIT Scholar Works

Theses Thesis/Dissertation Collections

11-1-1989

Bible binding techniques: Analysis of spine lining

constructions and endpaper reinforcements

Hyung-Sun Kim

Follow this and additional works at:http://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Thesis/Dissertation Collections at RIT Scholar Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of RIT Scholar Works. For more information, please [email protected].

Recommended Citation

(2)

Binding

Analysis of Spine _Lining Constructions

and Endpaper Reinforcements

by

Hyung-Sun Kim

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in the

School of _Printing Management and Sciences in the

College of Graphic Arts and _Photography of the

Rochester Institute of _Technology

November, 1989

(3)

Title of thesis:

Bible _Binding Techniques:

Analysis of Spine _Lining Constructions and Endpaper Reinforcements

1, Hyung-Sun Kim, _hereby grant permission to the Wallace Memorial _Library of RIT to reproduce _my thesis in whole or in part.

Any reproduction will not be for commercial use or profit.

(4)

Certificate of Approval - - Master's Thesis

School of Printing Management and Sciences Rochester Institute of Technology

Rochester, New York

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

MASTER' S THESIS

This is to certify that the Master's Thesis of

Hyung-Sun Kim

with a major in Printing Technology has been approved by the Thesis Committee as satisfactory for the thesis requirement for the

Master of Science degree at the convocation of November, 1989

Thesis Committee: Werner Rebsamen Thesis Advisor

Joseph L. Noga

Graduate Program Coordinator

(5)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express _my _hearty thanks to the members

of _my graduate program committee for their invaluable advice

and support.

Special thanks should be given to _my thesis advisor,

Professor Werner _Rebsamen, who suggested the idea for this

study and guided me to complete this project. I am grateful

to _my research _advisor, Dr. Charles A. _Layne, for his _help

with statistics and research procedures. _Also, I would like

to thank Professor Frank Cost for his considerate _help and

advice.

Finally, my parents and _my wife deserve _my greatest

thanks for their endless support _during _my _study

(6)

OF CONTENTS

List of Tables .

List of Figures

Abstract ....

Chapter 1

-INTRODUCTION .

Footnotes for Chapter 1

Chapter 2

-THEORETICAL BASIS

Spine lining: Loose back and Tubular liner

Constructions

Functions of Endpaper ....

Endpaper Reinforcement ....

Footnotes for Chapter 2 .

Chapter 3 - _LITERATURE _REVIEW

....

Spine _lining and Endpaper reinforcement .

Testing Methods ...

Footnotes for Chapter 3 .

Chapter 4 - _HYPOTHESES AND RATIONALE

Statement of the Problem ....

(7)

Chapter 5

-RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Experimental Design .

Book Preparation

Book _Testing

Delimitations and Limitations

Statistical Analysis

Footnotes for Chapter 5

Chapter 6

-RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

UBT Tumble Test Analysis .

Polytester Hinge-pull Test Analysis

Moffett Page-pull Test Analysis

Chapter 7 - _SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS 21 21 22 22 25 26 28 29 29 33 38 43

Chapter 8 - _{RECOMMENDATIONS} FOR FURTHER STUDY

50

BIBLIOGRAPHY 53

APPENDICES ...

APPENDIX A. BOOK PREPARATIONS FOR TESTS .

APPENDIX B. TEST DATA TABLES

APPENDIX C. STATISTICAL TEST RESULTS SUMMARY

55

56

60

64

(8)

Table 1

-BOOK TYPE PREPARATIONS . . . . .21

Table 2

-BOOK PREPARATION FOR THE UBT TUMBLE TEST . 57

Table 3

-BOOK PREPARATION FOR THE HINGE-PULL TEST . 58

Table 4

-BOOK PREPARATION FOR THE PAGE-PULL TEST . . 59

Table 5

-UBT TEST DATA ... 61

Table 6

-HINGE-PULL TEST DATA . . . . .62

Table 7 - _PAGE-PULL

TEST DATA ... 63

Table 8 - _ANOVA SUMMARY OF UBT TEST

. . . .65

Table 9

-DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST SUMMARY

OF UBT TEST ... 65

Table 10 - _ANOVA _SUMMARY OF HINGE-PULL TEST

. . .66

Table 11 - DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST SUMMARY

OF HINGE-PULL TEST . . . .66

Table 12

-ANOVA SUMMARY OF PAGE-PULL TEST . . .67

Table 13 - DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST SUMMARY

(9)

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1

-SPINE LINING CONSTRUCTION:

Loose back

FIGURE 2

Tubular Liner .

FIGURE 3

-ENDPAPER CONSTRUCTION:

Four-page Tipped-on Endpaper . . . .10

FIGURE 4

-ENDPAPER REINFORCEMENT:

Hinged Endpaper . . . .10

FIGURE 5

Whipstitched Signature . . . . .10

FIGURE 6

-INTERACTION PLOTS OF UBT MEANS . . .32

FIGURE 7

-INTERACTION PLOTS OF HINGE-PULL MEANS . .37

FIGURE 8

-INTERACTION PLOTS OF PAGE-PULL MEANS . .42

(10)

The Bible has been the largest _selling book title in the

world. _However, _very _little _research _of _Bible _binding

techniques has been done. Most Bibles contain more than two

thousand pages of Bible paper. _Therefore, such books are

usually thick and heavy. Thin bible papers provide _very

little strength for the joint.

The strength and _durability of a bound product depends

on good joint adhesion. The goal of this _study was to

investigate various joint constructions between the cover and

the bookblock of Smyth-sewn Bible bindings. The spine _lining

and endpaper reinforcement are two most important factors of

joint construction. Loose back and tubular _lining are

techniques used to reinforce adhesion of the bookblock to the

cover. Whipstitched signature and hinged endpaper are two

major endpaper reinforcement techniques of Bible bindings.

78 Bibles were tested _utilizing UBT tumble _test,

Hinge-pull _test, and Page-pull test. The books were _{approximately}

6"

x 9" in size, weighed three pounds _using the same Bible

papers. The results were analyzed _by a _two-way ANOVA with

optional Duncan Multiple-Range Test at a 95% confidence

(11)

2

bookbinding strength and durability. _Furthermore, graphical

analyses were made _by _plotting treatment means for each

tests.

Firstly, it was questioned if there were _any significant

differences in the Smyth-sewn hardcover Bible _binding

strength between the different spine _lining constructions of

loose back and tubular liner. The statistical analysis and

the graphical analysis of UBT tumble test results indicated

that there was evidence of extreme differences in _durability

due to spine _lining _{constructions,} and that books constructed

with tubular liner looked to be much more durable than books

constructed in loose back. On the _contrary, the analyses of

Hinge-pull test results revealed that there was no

significant variability due to spine _lining constructions.

This considerable _discrepancy would result from the nature of

the test methods and the nature of materials used. It seemed

that in each _tests, the stresses and forces distressed the

tubular liner materials in the different ways to make them

fail _during testing. However, the UBT tumble test is

considered to have shown and given the best correlation to

the physical breakdown of books in actual use. Thus it would

be reasonable to conclude that tubular liner constructions

are assumed to increase _binding _durability as compared to

(12)

Secondly, it was questioned if there were _any

significant differences in the strength of Smyth-sewn

hardcover Bible bindings between the different endpaper

constructions of four-page tipped-on _endpaper, hinged

endpaper, and whipstitched signature. The statistical and

graphical analyses of UBT tumble test and Hinge-pull test

indicated that there was evidence of significant differences

in _durability _among three different endpaper constructions,

and that books constructed with hinged endpaper reinforcement

was more durable than books constructed with four-page

tipped-on endpaper and whipstitched signature. _Surprisingly

the most inferior endpaper construction in _durability was

whipstitched signature reinforcement construction.

Whipstitching resulted in the highest page-pull _values, but

it seemed to make the first and last signature areas

relatively stiff so _that, if _tumbled, destructive forces and

stress took havoc with the _poorly _flexing hinges.

The books which were bound with hinged endpaper

reinforcement (for both spine lining constructions of tubular

liner and loose _back) and the books which were bound with

four-page tipped-on endpaper and tubular liner showed a

significant superiority in binding strength and _durability to

(13)

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

According to Estimated Book _{Publishing Industry} Sales

Information from the Association of American Publishers

1987 Annual _Statistics, the sales of _Bibles, _testaments, and

hymnbooks was $210.7 million out of total book sales of

$11.4 billion in 1987. This represented a 15.2% increase

over 1986 sales figure of $182.9 million. The Bible itself

has been the largest _selling book title in the world.

However, very little research of Bible _binding techniques

has been done. Bible _binding is a style of bookbindings

using a lightweight bible paper used for _Bibles,

dictionaries, etc.

Pochinchai _Printing Co. , Ltd. , which I have been

working for since _1986, is one of the largest Bible _printing

and _binding companies in Korea. The _company has produced

Smyth-sewn Bibles for _many foreign publishers _including

American. The majority of _quality Bibles is Smyth-sewn.

Smyth-sewn _binding is known as a sewn-through-the-fold

binding. It is a method in which the folded leaves of a

signature are first sewn, then subsequent signatures are

(14)

Printing Co., Ltd. showed great interest and support to this

study of Smyth-sewn Bible _binding techniques.

Book _{manufacturing} is a complex technology. Bound and

printed products should be manufactured to a standard

appropriate for their designated end-use. The strength and

durability of a bound product depends _very much on good

joint adhesion. In order to discuss joint _adhesion, one

must be aware of how bookblocks are constructed and how each

type _may have different requirements for optimum linkage

with the cover.

Most Bibles contain more than two thousand pages of

Bible paper, therefore, such books are _usually thick and

heavy. The bulk and _heavy weight of the bookblock can cause

excessive strain in the joint areas. _Furthermore, a thin

Bible paper itself provides _very little strength for the

joint. Bible paper is a _very lightweight and _highly opaque

paper, used _primarily where low bulk is important. Its basis

weight _generally ranges from 14 to 30 pounds

(25"x38"-500sheets)

The goal of this study was to investigate various joint

constructions between the cover and the bookblock of

Smyth-sewn Bible bindings, which are spine lining and endpaper

constructions. Loose back and tubular lining are techniques

(15)

3

Loose back _binding is a style of _binding in which the spine

binding material is not glued to the _binding edge of the

text sheets.4

Tubular _lining consists of a flat tube which

is glued to the spine of the book _block, and to the _in-lay

of the covers. Four-page tipped-on endpaper construction

has a four page endpaper tipped to the first or last part of

a text block _only _by a thin line of

adhesive.6

Hinged

endpaper and whipstitched signature are two major endpaper

reinforcement techniques. Hinged endpaper utilizes cloth

strips which are stripped around the first/last signatures

and

endpapers.7

Whipstitched signature consists of one half

of a signature sewn together. These various spine _lining

constructions and endpaper constructions are described in

detail in Chapter 2.

The purpose of this _study about Smyth-sewn Bible

binding techniques was to:

(1) analyze a tubular liner construction and discover its

aspects of _durability performance when compared with the

same aspects of a loose back construction.

(2) analyze the two most common endpaper _reinforcing

techniques of Bible bindings, whipstitched signature and

hinged endpaper, to discover their characteristics in regard

(16)

The information gained in regard to joint

constructions _may aid to optimize _binding methods and

determine production standards and/or recommendations for

improvement.

The next chapter will consider the theoretical basis of

(17)

FOOTNOTES FOR CHAPTER 1

1. Chandler B. _Grannis, "Book Sales Statistics:

Highlights from AAP Survey, 1987 and 1988" Library and Book Trade Almanac 34th Edition 1989-90 (New York: R.R. Bowker

Company, 1989), pp.435-437.

2. Werner _Rebsamen, "Joint Adhesion,"

The New Library

Scene (August _1983), p.7.

3. Werner _Rebsamen, Planning and Finishing (Rochester: Rochester Institute of _Technology) , Glossary of Terms:

Useful to Buyers of Text Papers.

4. Werner Rebsamen, Planning and Finishing (Rochester: Rochester Institute of _Technology) , Binding and Shipping

Terminology p.17.

5. Matt T. Roberts and Don Ether_ington, Bookbinding And The Conservation Of Books (Washington: _Library of _Congress,

1982) , p.183.

6. Werner Rebsamen, "Endpapers A Fundamental Part of Bookbinding," _The _Library _Scene _(March _1979), p.18.

(18)

THEORETICAL BASIS

The _following discussion is concerned with the spine

lining and endpaper _{reinforcement,} which are two most

important factors of joint construction between the cover

and the bookblock of Smyth-sewn Bible bindings.

Spine Lining: Loose Back And Tubular Liner Constructions

Spine _lining is the process of _reinforcing the spine of

a sewn bookblock. After gluing-off, trimming and _rounding,

the bookblocks are lined on the spine with gauze and kraft

paper. The purpose of _lining the spine is to support it and

to impart a certain degree of rigidity, while still

maintaining the necessary flexibility for proper

opening.1

Loose back and tubular _lining are techniques used to

reinforce adhesion of the bookblock to the cover.

Loose back _binding is a popular style of _binding in

which the spine _binding material is not glued to the _binding

edge of the text sheets 2

(See Figure ₁₎ . It is a binding

style _having a space between the spine of the book block and

the spine of the cover, resulting from the covering material

being attached at the joints and not _being glued to the

(19)

L: _Lining material S: Spine _//// Adhesn

FIGURE 1

-SPINE LINING CONSTRUCTION: Loose Back

Text

-Endpaper

Cover

Adhesive must absorb stress.

L: _Lining material S: Spine //// Adhesive

FIGURE 2

Tubular Liner

Text

Endpaper Cover

Folded tubular liner is

(20)

Tubular liner consists of a simple flat tube which is

then glued to the spine of the book _block, and to the _in-lay

of the _covers, _leaving a hollow _opening between the

bookblock and the case 3 (See Figure ₂₎ . Tubular liners are

pieces of _strong paper or cloth and a hollow construction.

These tubular liners are then mounted _tightly to the spines.

When _casing-in, adhesive is applied over the entire

backbone. _Thereafter, the bookblock is mounted _squarely and

tightly into the case. After a _drying period, the joints and

endpapers are pasted-off and the bookblocks are pressed and

built-in in regular

fashion.4

Functions Of Endpaper

Endpapers are the units of two or more leaves placed in

the front and back of a book between its covers and text

block. Their function is to link the book to its _cover, to

hide some constructional features of the _binding, and to

protect the first few pages of the text. The endpapers

perform the crucial function of _holding the text block in

its covers, or case. In addition, the board papers and _fly

(21)

9

Endpaper Reinforcement

Four-page endpapers are the most _widely used endpapers

for casebound books and similar styles. This method is

acceptable for use with books that will receive little wear.

Four-page tipped-on endpapers are _usually tipped to the

first and last part of a text block _only _by a thin line of

adhesive (See Figure ₃₎ . There is no reinforcement in the

joint _area, so constant _opening and _closing will _eventually

cause the _binding to split.6

The whipstitched signature and the hinged endpaper

reinforcements are two major endpaper reinforcement

techniques for Bible bindings. The hinged endpaper is used

for books and bindings designated for _heavy use. Books sewn

through the _bindfold, that is Smyth sewn, have a four page

endpaper tipped to the first and last pages of a book. The

cloth strips _{approximately} one inch wide are then stripped

around the first and last signatures in order to reduce

stress when _opening and _closing the book (See Figure ₄₎ .

This technique allows the cloth reinforcement to be sewn to

the _bookblock, and thus making the cotton cloth invisible.7

It also prevents the possibility of the sheet _tearing _away

from the one to which it is attached.

Whipstitching is a process of _sewing single sheets

(22)

Sewing thread //// Adhesive

kz

-^C^Endpaper (board paper)

^Endpaper _{(fly leave)}

-First or last signature

FIGURE 3

-ENDPAPER CONSTRUCTION:

Four-page Tipped-on Endpaper

Sewing thread //// Adhesive Cloth or paper

m.

%

%nr

Sewing thread //// Adhesive Whipstitching

S^

F

s

'Endpaper (board paper) -Endpaper (fly leave)

FIGURE 4

Hinged Endpaper

^Endpaper (board paper)

^Endpaper (fly leave)

FIGURE 5 - _ENDPAPER REINFORCEMENT:

(23)

11

on the thickness of a signature i.e. 3 2 or 64 pages. _Only

one half of a signature is sewn. The reason for

whipstitching is that eight or sixteen leaves of paper sewn

together provide more strength than a single sheet of thin

(24)

1. Matt T. Roberts and Don Ether_ington, Bookbinding And

The Conservation Of Books (Washington: _Library of _Congress,

1982) , p.245.

2. Werner _Rebsamen, Planning and _Finishing (Rochester:

Rochester Institute of _Technology) , Binding and Shipping

Terminology p.17.

1982) , p.183.

The New _Library Scene (August _1983), p.16.

1982) , pp.89-92.

6. Werner Rebsamen, "Endpapers A Fundamental Part of

Bookbinding,"

The _Library Scene (March _1979), p.18.

(25)

13

Chapter 3

LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature investigated _regarding this _study of

joint strength and _durability between the cover and the

bookblock of Smyth-sewn Bible bindings is organized into

three parts: spine _lining, endpaper _{reinforcement,} and

testing methods.

Spine _Lining And Endpaper Reinforcement

The purpose of _lining the spine is to support it and to

impart a certain degree of _rigidity, while still _maintaining

the _necessary _flexibility for proper opening. In these

aspects, a tubular liner could be the most desirable

construction _among various spine _lining constructions.

Werner Rebsamen, Technical Director to LBI and Professor at

Rochester Institute of _Technology, expresses the advantages

of tubular liner as follows:

"Tubular liners allow the books to flex _freely, yet give

that extra strength to the joints where it is needed

most. Tubular liners are the best choice in the

construction of durable casebindings, since _they combine that extra strength with good openability. "

Properly constructed endpapers are essential for the

durability of bound hardcover books. Rebsamen stresses their

(26)

construction chosen has good dimensional _stability and

offers _flexing characteristics."2

In a well-bound book there should be no stress on the

first and last leaves. The cover should open and close in an

unrestricted fashion. _However, not all endpaper

constructions offer these features. In a four-page tipped-on

endpaper _{construction,} _tipping will cause stress on the

first and last _leaves, _certainly not a good choice when the

text block is adhesive bound or contains weak

paper.3

In a

hinged endpaper _{construction,} the extra stiffness in the

joint area helps the _binding hold its shape when rounded and

backed. However, Rebsamen says that it creates a pull on the first leaf of the book and makes the cover harder to open.4

Testing Methods

Rebsamen states some important points in _preparing for testing books:

"In comparison performance _testing, it is most important

that the books be of equal _dimension, weight and paper.

The ideal _testing book should weigh about three pounds and be approximately 6x9 inches in

size."5

Several methods for _testing joint strength have been

developed in order to study the critical aspects of good

(27)

15

The _hinge-pull _test _can _be _performed _on _the Robbins &

Bendror _Polytester, which is a low cost, multipurpose

testing device. The Polytester is used to measure the

tensile strengths such as _page-pull, _page-flex, cover _flex, joint _adhesion, spine pull and corner

pull.7

The strength of a book in use can be regarded as the

important criterion of its strength.8

With the _UBT,

researchers have found that _{approximately} 9 0 percent of the failures which occur out in the field can be duplicated in

about the same proportions. The _remaining 10 percent _gap can further be closed if the UBT is combined with heat-aging.9

The Universal _Tester, developed _by the W.J. Barrow research

Laboratory through _sponsorship of the _{Library Technology}

Project of _ALA, consists of a rectangular _chamber, _rotating

at about 23 revolutions per minute in a plane inclined at 20

degrees to the horizontal. Rebsamen explains how it works:

"The sides of the bottom of the test chambers were

rounded to a 1-1/2 inch radius, to concentrate the stresses along the shoulder of the spine. In order to

test for abrasion, all chambers are lined with a stainless steel fabric to provide

abrasion."10

According to Jack Bendror, the UBT tester produces the

following results:

1. Abrasion of the shoulder of the spine or external hinge.

2. Impact and abrasion on the head and tail caps.

(28)

4. Limited _flexing of the external and internal hinges.

5. _Breaking and _tearing of the internal hinge.

6. Occasional failure of the sewing, loosing of signatures

and _splitting of the spine.

In addition to the UBT tumble test and Hinge-pull _test,

the Page-pull test is performed _by the Moffett tester to

give some useful information about tensile pull resistance

of text leaves of the first and last _signatures, which could

be affected _by different joint constructions. _However, it is

important to bear in mind that the page-pull test

(29)

17

The New _Library Scene (August _1983), p.16.

2. Werner _Rebsamen, "Endpapers A Fundamental Part of

Bookbinding,"

The Library Scene (March _1979), p.19.

3. Werner _Rebsamen, "Endpaper Construction for Recasing,"

The New _Library Scene (June _1985), p.17.

4. Werner _Rebsamen, "Endpapers A Fundamental Part of Bookbinding,"

The Library Scene (March _1979), p.19.

5. Werner _Rebsamen, _{"Bookbinding Testing Laboratory}

Evaluates _Machinery, _Materials, _Techniques, Book Production

Industry & Magazine Production _(May _1977), p.66.

The New _Library

Scene (August _1983), p.18.

7. Werner _Rebsamen, _{"Bookbinding Testing Laboratory}

Evaluates _Machinery, Materials, Techniques, Book Production

Industry & Magazine Production _(May _1977), p.64.

8. Seija _Korhonen, "Factors _affecting the strength of a book," _Advances _in

Printing Science and _Technology

-Proceedings of the 14th International Conference of Printing

Research Institute Marbella. Spain (Finland: Graphic Arts

Research Institute, June 1977), p.368.

9. Werner Rebsamen, "Performance _Testing With the

Universal Book Tester," _The _New

Library Scene (October 1987), p.13.

10. Ibid. . p.14.

11. Jack Bendror, Technology and Testing of _Library

Bound Books (Rochester, NY: Graphic Arts Research _Center,

RIT, 1976) , p.8.

(30)

Chapter 4

HYPOTHESES AND RATIONALE

Statement Of The Problem

The principal judgement criterion to be used in this

study is the _durability of bindings. _Durability means the

ability of a bound volume to remain in its case without

deterioration, while _being subjected to stresses which it

may receive in actual use.

Tubular liners are assumed to increase _binding

durability as well as _maintaining good openability. Endpaper

reinforcements such as whipstitched signature and hinged

endpaper have been assumed to increase _{binding durability}

-A series of tests were designed to answer the _following

specific questions:

1. Are there _any significant differences in the Smyth-sewn

hardcover Bible _binding strength between the different

spine _lining constructions of loose back and tubular

liner?

2. Are there _any significant differences in the strength

of Smyth-sewn hardcover Bible bindings between the

different endpaper constructions of four-page tipped-on

(31)

19

Hypotheses

This _study will examine the _following hypotheses.

la: There will be no significant differences at a 95%

confidence level in the Smyth-sewn hardcover Bible

binding strength between the loose back and the tubular

liner constructions as measured _by the UBT tumble test.

lb: There will be no significant differences at a 95%

confidence level in the strength of Smyth-sewn

hardcover Bible bindings:

(1) between the four-page tipped-on endpaper and the

hinged endpaper _{constructions,}

whipstitched signature _{constructions,}

(3) between the hinged endpaper and the whipstitched

signature _{constructions,}

as measured _by the UBT tumble test.

2a: There will be no significant differences at a 95%

liner constructions as measured _by the Hinge-pull test.

2b: There will be no significant differences at a 95%

(32)

as measured _by the Hinge-pull test.

confidence level in the Page-pull test results for

Smyth-sewn hardcover Bible bindings constructed in

loose _back, versus those constructed with tubular

liner.

Smyth-sewn hardcover Bible bindings constructed:

(1) with four-page tipped-on endpaper versus with

hinged endpaper,

whipstitched signature,

(3) with hinged endpaper versus with whipstitched

(33)

21

Chapter 5

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Experimental Design

This experiment was constructed as a 2 x 3 factorial

design. The first factor to be examined was spine _lining

construction. The two levels of spine _lining were loose back

and tubular liner constructions. The second factor to be

examined was endpaper reinforcement construction. The three

levels of endpaper reinforcement were four-page tipped-on

endpaper, hinged endpaper, and whipstitched signature.

This design yielded six (2 x ₃₎ crossed book treatments

(see Table ₁₎ . 13 replicates were prepared for each of six

book treatments, for a total of 78 test volumes (6 crossed

treatments x 13 replicates = ₇₈ _test

volumes) .

SPINE LINING ENDPAPER REINFORCEMENT TESTING

CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION VOLUMES

Four-page tipped-on endpaper 13

Loose back Hinged endpaper 13

Whipstitched signature 13

Four-page tipped-on endpaper 13

Tubular liner Hinged endpaper 13

Whipstitched signature 13

TOTAL: 78

(34)

Book Preparation

The materials and procedures utilized to produce the

test volumes for this _study were chosen to follow common

industry production standards for Smyth-sewn hardcover

Bibles. _Also, those Smyth-sewn hardcover Bibles to be tested

were produced and provided _by the Pochinchai _Printing Co. ,

Ltd., which is one of the major commercial printers and

binders in Korea.

The trim sizes of the volumes tested were 6 _by 9 inches

by 1 5/8 inches thick. All bound volumes weighed three

pounds. The bookblocks were rounded and backed. The same 2 4

lb. basis Bible paper was used for all volumes. The tubular

liners were made _up of _strong kraft paper. 120 lb. endpaper

stock from the same production lot was used. The paper grain

was parallel to the spine of the book. One inch wide muslin

strips were used to construct the hinged endpapers.

Book _Testing

To measure joint strength and durability, three

specific tests were selected: UBT tumble test, Hinge-pull

Test, and Page-pull test. 30 books were subjected to each of

UBT test and Hinge-pull test. 18 books were subjected to

Page-pull test, (see Appendix A for book preparations for

(35)

23

UBT Tumble Test: A book to be tested was placed in the

bottom of the chamber. The spine of the book was

perpendicular to the squared ends of the chamber. As the

chamber _rotated, _the _book _slid _in _a _regulated _manner;

receiving impact stresses on the _bottom, _along with abrasion

of the edges and _shoulder, and some _flexing of the hinges.1

The duration for the UBT test to produce the best result was

60 minutes (about 1380 _revolutions) The words of "the

duration for the best result"

meant the appropriate _testing

time which could show _any _existing variation in strengths

between different _binding constructions. In _utilizing the

UBT _test, the qualitative data on the _durability of bound

volumes were produced. _Therefore, in order to transform the

qualitative data into the quantitative _data, this _study

utilized the _following five point _rating index developed _by

Chaback.3

Each volume tested was inspected as to the

performance, then a numerical _rating was assigned to that.

1) Inferior: Split endpaper, severely loose joints, book

block _hanging loose between cover _boards, endpaper

separation from book block.

2) Poor: Partially split endpaper, loose joints, endpaper

coming loose from boards but not more than a quarter of

(36)

3) Fair: Slight split or other damages to endpaper

construction, loose _joint, endpaper remained adhered to

boards, no separation from book _block, internal split

endpaper.

4) Good: _Slightly loose _joints, endpapers adhered well to

boards, no separation from book block.

5) Superior: no _damages, no loose _joints, good adhesion

throughout.

Hinge-Pull Test _By Polytester: The bound volumes were

first split on the spine of the case so that the strength of

case materials did not affect test results. The object was

to test the strength of the cover joint only. The book was

laid face down on the table and one cover was inserted

through the slot in the book clamp; the _clamp was then

lowered and tightened against the book. The page _clamp

gripped the cover. Pressure was applied with the hand lever.

The tensile force required to pull the cover from the

binding was recorded on the digital meter in pounds.

Page-Pull Test _By Moffett Tester: The second text

sheets to the _fly endpapers were pulled from each book. The

book was placed flat on the base place, and the page to be

(37)

25

captivating rod was _{slowly turned} until the slot was _facing

the operator. The end of the page was inserted into the slot

and the rod was turned until the book was drawn upward and

the apex was _resting

firmly against the bottom of the front

and back wedges. Then the red indicator in the test gauge

was set to zero. _By

activating the valve, the pneumatic

pressure force continued to build until the page was pulled

out. The pounds of Pull test were recorded _by the red

indicator on the test gauge. The tensile force value can be

expressed in pounds per linear inch if compared books with

different spine lengths.

Delimitations And Limitations

This _study was limited to _testing Smyth-sewn hardcover

Bibles _using 24 lb. basis Bible paper and 120 lb. basis

endpaper stock. The tubular liners were made _up of _strong

kraft _paper, and muslin strips were used to construct the

hinged endpapers. This study did not evaluate _any _binding

materials. The _deviating factors were only the spine _lining

construction and the endpaper construction used. The test

results were to be based on only the different binding

structures. However, they could be affected _by the material

failures which were not taken into account in the assessment

(38)

Another limitation to this _study was its _reliability

due to the small sample sizes. The fact that _only five

replicates per treatment were used for UBT test and

Hinge-pull test and three replicates per treatment were used for

Page-pull test caused some concern. The extraneous variation

in one test sample would skew the readings for the entire

treatment. _However, the small sample size was unavoidable

due to limited resources available to this research. To

avert this kind of _variation, all _testing samples were

carefully inspected to see if _they had _any kind of _defect,

before _they were accepted for a given test.

Statistical Analysis

With the statistics package SAS (Statistical Analysis

System) on the RIT VAX computer _system, a _two-way analysis

of variance _(ANOVA) was performed to test each hypothesis.

The ANOVA is used to assign a portion of the total

variability within the data set to the individual factors

under consideration _by _comparing the means for each

treatment. If the difference between the means is larger

than the calculated F1 ratio, then the difference is deemed

to be the result of _something other than a _naturally

occurring variation. In this case the null hypothesis is

rejected.4

(39)

27

which meant that a conclusion drawn had a 95 percent

probability of _being correct. The ANOVA was performed again

at an alpha level of 0.01 for comparison.

The ANOVA does not _identify which factors are

responsible for the rejection of the null hypothesis. If the

null hypothesis had been _rejected, to _identify which

treatments were _{significantly} different from each _other, the

Duncan Multiple Range Test was performed with the VAX

statistics program SAS.

The means for each treatment were calculated and

plotted _using a Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet on a IBM PC.

The tables of the test data and the ANOVA with Duncan

Multiple-Range Test summaries are included in the Appendix

(40)

1. Werner _Rebsamen, _"Performance _Testing With the

Universal Book Tester,"

The New _Library Scene (October

1987) , p. 15.

2. _Geoffrey T. _Hyatt, Factors Affecting the Strength

and Openability of Tight Backed. Adhesive Bound. Hardcover Volumes _(Rochester, NY: Master's _Thesis, _RIT, August _1988),

p.29.

3. Claudia E. _Chaback, A Performance Comparison Between

A Wide-Hinged Endpaper Construction and The _Library Binding

Institute Standard Endpaper Construction _(Rochester, NY:

Master's _Thesis, _RIT, _May _1987), p. 35.

4. David Anderson et al, Statistics: Concepts and

Applications (St. _Paul, MN: West _{Publishing Company,} 1986),

(41)

29

Chapter 6

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

UBT Tumble Test Analysis

According to the ANOVA analysis (see Table 8) and the

Duncan Multiple-Range test (see Table ₉₎ of UBT tumble test

results, all of the _following hypotheses were rejected:

la: There will be no significant differences at a 95%

liner constructions as measured _by the UBT tumble test.

lb: There will be no significant differences at a 95%

hinged endpaper constructions,

whipstitched signature constructions,

signature constructions,

as measured _by the UBT tumble test.

Based on the ANOVA analysis of UBT tumble test results

(42)

spine _lining _{constructions} _was _30.32 _while _the _critical _F

value was 4.02. Since the calculated F value exceeded the

critical F _value, there was evidence of significant

differences _among the spine _lining constructions. _Therefore,

the Hypothesis la was rejected. The Duncan Multiple-Range

Test for spine _lining constructions confirmed the rejection

of Hypothesis la _by _grouping tubular liner construction and

loose back construction into the different _groups, which

meant _they were _{significantly} different in durability. _Also,

it showed that the mean _durability _rating for books bound

using tubular liner construction was 3.8333 whereas the mean

for books bound _using loose back construction was 2.4667.

Therefore, books bound using tubular liner construction

appeared to be more durable than books bound _using loose

back construction.

From the ANOVA analysis of UBT tumble test _results, we

got the calculated F value of 49.35 and the critical F value

of 3.17 for endpaper constructions. Since the F statistics

for endpaper constructions was significant, there were

significant differences in durability related to the

endpaper constructions. According to the Duncan

Multiple-Range Test for endpaper constructions, neither of four-page

tipped-on endpaper, hinged endpaper, and whipstitched

(43)

31

That revealed all three endpaper constructions were

significantly different from each other in durability. _Thus,

the Hypotheses _lb-(l),

lb-(2), and lb-₍₃₎ were rejected. The

Duncan Multiple-Range Test for endpaper constructions gave

us the _following mean values of _durability _rating for books

utilizing each endpaper constructions: 4.75 for hinged

endpaper reinforcement _{construction,} 2.95 for four-page

tipped-on endpaper _{construction,} and 1.75 for whipstitched

reinforcement construction. _Thus, books bound with hinged

endpaper appeared to be much more superior in _durability

than others, and book bound with four-page tipped-on

endpaper were next-superior. It was quite _interesting point

that books bound with whipstitched signature yielded the

inferior results in UBT tumble test as compared to books

bound with four-page tipped-on endpaper which had no

endpaper reinforcement.

The ANOVA analysis of UBT tumble test results showed

that the significant interactions between spine _lining

constructions and endpaper constructions were present. An

interaction is an additional effect due to the particular

combination of the two levels. Therefore, the degree of

superiority in durability varied form construction to

construction. Figure 6 shows the interaction plots of UBT

(44)

INTERACTION PLOTS OF UBT MEANS

5.0

4.5

-4.0

-3.5

-3.0

2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

Tipped-on Hi nged Whipstitched

ENDPAPER CONSTRUCTION

? Loose Back + Tubular Liner

(45)

33

indicated _by the deviations from parallelism. As indicated

on the _graph, books bound _using tubular liner seemed to be

superior in _durability to those bound in loose back

construction regardless of the various endpaper

constructions. _However, _durability of book with four-page

tipped-on endpaper was enhanced most _dramatically with

tubular liner. Books bound with four-page tipped-on endpaper

and tubular liner showed the almost same high mean

durability rating (4.4) as books bound with hinged endpaper

in loose back (4.6). In the case of books bound with hinged

endpaper, the mean _durability _rating went _up to 4.9 with

tubular liner form 4.6 with loose _back, which was quite a

small enhancement. This was because books bound with hinged

endpaper in loose back had _already showed excellent degree

of _durability, _especially as compared to those bound with

four-page tipped-on endpaper or whipstitched signature in

loose back.

Polytester Hinge-pull Test Analysis

Based on the ANOVA analysis (see Table ₁₀₎ and the

Duncan Multiple-Range test (see Table ₁₁₎ of Hinge-pull test

results, the following hypothesis was accepted:

(46)

liner _{constructions} _as _measured

by the Hinge-pull test.

Also, the statistical analysis of the ANOVA with

optional Duncan Multiple-Range Test indicated that all of

the _following _hypotheses _should _be _rejected:

as measured _by the Hinge-pull test.

According to the ANOVA analysis of Hinge-pull test

results at the 95% confidence _level, the calculated F value

for spine _lining constructions was 1.57 while the critical F

value was 4.02. Since the calculated F value did not exceed

the critical F value, there was no evidence of significant

differences due to spine _lining constructions. _Therefore,

(47)

35

hypothesis, the _probability of a Type Two error was 21.5%.

The Duncan _{Multiple-Range} Test for spine _lining

constructions supported the acceptance of Hypothesis 2a _by

grouping tubular liner construction and loose back

construction into the same _group, which meant _they were not

significantly different in hinge strength. It showed that

the mean load for books bound in tubular liner construction

was 303.83 3 lbs. and the mean load for books bound in loose

back construction was 315.433 _lbs., whereas the critical

range was 18.5514. _Therefore, books bound _using both spine

lining constructions could be considered equal in hinge

strength.

From the ANOVA analysis of Hinge-pull test _results, we

got the calculated F value of 196.90 and the critical F

value of 3.17 for endpaper constructions. Since the F

statistics for endpaper constructions was _significant, there

were significant differences in hinge strength related to

the endpaper constructions. _According to the Duncan

Multiple-Range Test at the 0.05 level for endpaper

constructions, neither of four-page tipped-on endpaper,

hinged endpaper, and whipstitched signature had same letter

in Duncan grouping. That revealed that all three endpaper

constructions were significantly different from each other

in hinge strength. Thus, the Hypotheses

2b-(1),

(48)

2b-(3) were rejected. The Duncan Multiple-Range Test for

endpaper constructions gave us the _following mean loads for

each constructions: 438.65 lbs. for hinged endpaper

reinforcement _{construction,} _257.25 _lbs. _for four-page

tipped-on endpaper _{construction,} and 233 lbs. for

whipstitched reinforcement construction. _Thus, books bound

with hinged endpaper appeared to be most superior in hinge

strength, and books bound with four-page tipped-on endpaper

was next-superior. This indicated that books _utilizing the

hinged endpaper required the greatest force to be separated

from the hinge of the bookblock. Same as in the statistical

analysis of UBT tumble test _results, the books bound with

whipstitched signature yielded inferior results in the

Hinge-pull test as compared to those bound with four-page

tipped-on endpaper which had no endpaper reinforcement.

However, it was observed that _they belonged to the same

Duncan grouping at the alpha level of _0.01, which meant _they

were not significantly different.

The ANOVA analysis of Hinge-pull test results did not

show _any significant interactions between spine lining

constructions and endpaper constructions. _Therefore, the

degree of superiority in hinge strength varied only by

endpaper constructions. Figure 7 shows the interaction plots

(49)

37

INTERACTION PLOTS OF HINGE-PULL MEANS

Q Z 3 O a x LU CC z ss 2 460 440 420 400 380 360 340 -320 -300 -280 260 240 -220 -200 430.6 264.2 245.4 220.6 "T~ Tipped-on 1

H inged

1 Whipstitched

ENDPAPER CONSTRUCT I ON

LOOSE BACH + TUBULAR LINER

(50)

in shapes from the plots of UBT tumble test means. The

graphs for tubular liner construction and loose back

construction ran almost _parallel, and there did not appear

to be _any great _difference _in _hinge _strengths _between _books

bound _using those two spine _lining constructions. _Among the

three different endpaper _{constructions,} the books _utilizing

hinged endpaper construction showed much superior hinge

strength to others regardless of spine _lining construction

types.

Moffett Page-pull Test Analysis

Based on the ANOVA analysis (see Table ₁₂₎ and the

Duncan Multiple-Range test (see Table ₁₃₎ of Page-pull test

results, the _following hypotheses were accepted:

Smyth-sewn hardcover Bible bindings constructed in

loose _back, versus those constructed with tubular

liner.

(51)

39

Also, the statistical analysis of the ANOVA with

optional Duncan Multiple-Range Test indicated that the

following hypotheses should be rejected:

whipstitched _signature,

(3) with hinged endpaper versus with whipstitched

signature.

According to the ANOVA analysis of Page-pull test

results at the 95% confidence _level, the calculated F value

for spine _lining constructions was 0.14 while the critical F

value was 4.17. Since the calculated F value did not exceed

the critical F value, there was no evidence of significant

differences due to spine _lining constructions. _Therefore,

the Hypothesis 3a was accepted. In _accepting this

hypothesis, the probability of a Type Two error was 71.4%.

The Duncan Multiple-Range Test for spine _lining

constructions supported the acceptance of Hypothesis 3a _by

grouping tubular liner construction and loose back

construction into the same group, which meant they were not

(52)

that the mean load for books bound in tubular liner

construction was 30.889 lbs. and the mean load for books

bound in loose back construction was 30.500 _lbs., whereas

the critical range was 2.14739. _Therefore, books bound with

those two spine _lining _{constructions} could be considered

equal in page-pull strength. This was the result that we

expected, because spine _lining constructions do not affect

the _binding structure and strength of text papers.

From the ANOVA analysis of Page-pull test results, we

got the calculated F value of 242.68 and the critical F

value of 3.32 for endpaper constructions. Since the F

statistics for endpaper constructions was _significant, there

were significant differences in page-pull strength related

to the endpaper constructions. _According to the Duncan

Multiple-Range Test at the 0.05 level for endpaper

constructions, four-page tipped-on endpaper and hinged

endpaper constructions belonged to the same _group in Duncan

grouping. That revealed that those two endpaper

constructions were not _{significantly} different from each

other in page-pull strength. _Thus, the Hypothesis 3b-(1) was

accepted. Whipstitched signature construction appeared to be

strongest and appeared _by itself in Duncan grouping, meaning

it was significantly different from other endpaper

constructions. Thus, the Hypotheses

(53)

41

rejected. The _{Duncan Multiple-Range} _Test _for

endpaper

constructions gave us the _following mean loads for each

constructions: 47.083 lbs. for whipstitched endpaper

reinforcement _{construction,} 22.500 lbs. for four-page

tipped-on endpaper _{construction,} and 22.500 lbs. for hinged

reinforcement construction. This indicated that the books

constructed with whipstitched endpaper required the greatest

force to pull out a page from the first or last signature.

The ANOVA analysis of Page-pull test results did not

show _any significant interactions between spine _lining

constructions and endpaper constructions. _Therefore, the

degree of _superiority in page-pull strength varied _only _by

endpaper constructions. Figure 8 shows the interaction plots

of Page-pull test mean values. The graphs for tubular liner

construction and loose back construction showed almost

parallelism, and there did not appear to be _any significant

difference in page-pull strengths between books bound _using

those two spine _lining constructions. _Among the three

different endpaper constructions, the books constructed with

whipstitched endpaper showed about twice superior page-pull

strength as compared to those bound with other endpaper

(54)

INTERACTION PLOTS OF PAGE- _PULL _MEANS

50

48

45

44

42 Q

Z

40

Z 38

I

1-z UJ cc

1-1/3

36

34

32

z

2

30

28

26

24

22

20

Tipped-on Hinged Whipstitched

ENDPAPER CONSTRUCTION

d Loose Back: + Tubular Liner

(55)

43

Chapter 7

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The objective of this _study about Smyth-sewn Bible

binding techniques was to:

(1) analyze a tubular liner construction and discover its

aspects of _durability performance when compared with the

same aspects of a loose back _{construction,}

(2) analyze the two most common endpaper _reinforcing

techniques of Bible _bindings, whipstitched signature and

hinged endpaper, to discover their characteristics in regard

to _durability with four-page tipped-on endpaper.

To achieve these objectives, 78 Bibles were tested

utilizing UBT tumble test, Hinge-pull test, and Page-pull

test. The results were analyzed _by a _two-way ANOVA with

optional Duncan Multiple-Range Test at a 95% confidence

level, and compared with the hypotheses concerning

bookbinding strength and durability. Furthermore, graphical

analyses were made _by plotting treatment means for each

test.

The following specific questions were asked to

summarize and conclude the findings from testing the

hypotheses _by a _two-way ANOVA with optional Duncan

(56)

1. Are there _any significant differences in the Smyth-sewn

hardcover Bible _binding strength between the different

spine _lining _{constructions} _of _loose _back _and _tubular

liner?

-Yes.

The UBT tumble test and Hinge-pull _test, which are two

common methods for _testing joint strength, yielded

contradictory results on this question.

The ANOVA analysis (Table ₈₎ with Duncan Multiple-Range

Test (Table ₉₎ at a 95% confidence level and the graphical

analysis (Figure ₆₎ of UBT tumble test results indicated

that there was evidence of extreme differences in _durability

among those two spine _lining _{constructions,} and that books

constructed with tubular liner looked to be much more

durable than books constructed in loose back.

On the _contrary, the ANOVA analysis (Table ₁₀₎ with

Duncan Multiple-Range Test (Table ₁₁₎ at a 95% confidence

level and the graphical analysis (Figure ₇₎ analyses of

Hinge-pull test results revealed that there was no

significant _variability due to spine lining constructions.

This considerable discrepancy would result from the

nature of the test methods and the nature of materials used.

In the Hinge-pull test of books constructed with tubular

liner, the tubular liner material was not cut off but split

(57)

45

the UBT tumble _test, _the _tubular _liner _material _was _not

split _internally _but _cut

off if the book had failed. It

seemed that in each _tests, _the _stresses _and _forces

distressed the tubular liner materials in different ways to

make them fail _during testing. The Hinge-pull test is used

to examine _only _the _hinge strength. _Also, the tubular liner

material, in this case the _strong kraft paper, seemed to

have much weaker internal split strength than cut-off

strength. _Therefore, it would be better in Hinge-pull test

if we had used tubular liner made with _cloth, which did not

seem to reveal _any material failure before _binding

deterioration.

The UBT tumble test is considered to have shown and

given the best correlation to the physical breakdown of

books in actual use. Thus it would be reasonable to conclude

that tubular liner constructions are assumed to increase

binding durability as compared to loose back constructions.

2. Are there _any significant differences in the strength

of Smyth-sewn hardcover Bible bindings between the

different endpaper constructions of four-page tipped-on

endpaper, whipstitched signature, and hinged endpaper?

(58)

The UBT tumble test and Hinge-pull test provided the

same results on this question. The ANOVA analysis (Table ₈₎

with Duncan _{Multiple-Range} _Test _(Table

9) at a 95%

confidence level and the graphical analysis (Figure ₆₎ of

UBT tumble test results indicated that there was evidence of

significant differences in _durability _among those three

endpaper _{constructions,} and that books constructed with

hinged endpaper reinforcement was much more durable than

books constructed with four-page tipped-on endpaper and

whipstitched signature. The most inferior endpaper

construction in _durability was whipstitched signature

reinforcement construction. _{Whipstitching} resulted in high

page-pull values, but it created a bundle of stiff papers

which, if tumbled, could cause stress onto other parts and

subsequent failure.

The ANOVA analysis (Table 10) with Duncan

Multiple-Range Test (Table ₁₁₎ at a 95% confidence level and the

graphical analysis (Figure 7) of Hinge-pull test results

revealed the same results as those of UBT tumble test.

However, for comparison, the Duncan Multiple-Range test at

the alpha level of 0.01 of Hinge-pull test results showed

that there were not significant differences in hinge

strength between four-page tipped-on endpaper and

(59)

47

The ANOVA analysis (Table ₁₂₎ with Duncan

Multiple-Range Test (Table ₁₃₎ at a 95% confidence level and the

graphical analysis (Figure ₈₎ of Page-pull test results

revealed that whipstitched signature construction was

significantly different and stronger in page-pull strength

as compared to four-page tipped-on endpaper and hinged

endpaper constructions. _However, books bound with

whipstitched signature were proved to be most inferior or

not superior to others in _binding strength and overall

durability in UBT tumble test and Hinge-pull test. This was

a quite _surprising _finding, _especially when endpaper

reinforcements such as whipstitched signature have been

assumed to increase _binding durability. This could be

explained _by _examining the hinge _splitting points when books

failed _by UBT tumble test and Hinge-pull test. Those two

tests utilized 60 _books, which _giving 40 results (20 _books)

of hinge split condition for each endpaper constructions.

For the books constructed with four-page tipped-on endpaper

and whipstitched signature, none of them failed at the first

text page tipped-on to endpaper _{(fly leaves)} although

tipping would cause stress on that. If _they had _failed, it

was _only at the endpaper hinge. Therefore, it was obvious

that reinforcing endpaper construction by whipstitching the

(60)

would not make _any _difference _in

binding durability as

compared to four-page tipped-on endpaper construction which

had no endpaper _{reinforcement.} _And

whipstitching seemed to

make the first and last signature areas _relatively _stiff, so

that destructive forces and stresses became havoc with the

poorly flexing hinges.

For the books constructed with hinged endpaper, if they

had failed and had _splitting _during _tests, the _splitting

points were endpaper _hinge, between the first text page and

the endpaper _(fly _leave) _, and between the first signature

and the next signature. This indicated that stresses were

evenly distributed to all hinge areas. A hinged endpaper

reinforcement appeared to _greatly aid in unrestricted

movement of hinge _area, and the _hinging _strip seemed to act

as a reinforcement as the needle passes through the folded

paper and the cloth strip.

Thus it is a conclusion that hinged endpaper

reinforcement construction extremely enhances the _binding

strength and _durability of _books, and books bound with

hinged endpaper seem to be more durable than books bound

with four-page tipped-on endpaper or with whipstitched

signature reinforcement. Books constructed with four-page

tipped-on endpaper are more durable only a _very little than